Victor Varela-Arzola appeals after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense and the District Court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), generally challenging Varela-Arzo-la’s sentence. Varela-Arzola has filed a supplemental brief arguing — in reference to a supervised-release revocation sentence imposed at the same hearing — that he should have received concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences.

After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any significant procedural sentencing error or impose a substantively unreasonable sen *276 tence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or consecutively based on the same [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as other sentencing decisions.”). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct., 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm.